rockingrobin

"Also, the court said that, as opposition MPs, the trio were duty-bound to keep checks on the government’s performance."

There's a nice little precedent.

Precisely, and that'll be used in some upcoming impeachment and criminal cases. Couldn't have come at a more opportune time.

Except Thailand dosnt use precedent, each case is tried on its own merit.

Does this mean that if the case was taken to court again a different judgement could ensue

Natural causes

Natural deaths are the workings of Mother Nature in that death results from a natural disease process. Heart attacks, cancers, pneumonias, and strokes are common natural causes of death. Natural death is by far the largest category of death that the ME sees, making up about half of the cases investigated.

What we need to do is establish the cause of death, which apparently in this case is a cocktail of drugs to treat an illness ?

As the illness did not directly cause the death then it cannot be natural causes ,

Accidental death would be the more appropriate outcome , due to unplanned and unforeseeable sequence of events of the drugs.

However if whoever supplied the drugs (assuming medication) has not carried out due diligence then this could change the definition of death

I always thought it was the coroners or equivalent , to determine the cause of death and not the parents, I can understand why such a statement would be issued

going back to the picture showing Davids shorts and pants I noticed the following

The object wrapped in yellow on the rock in the background

The white object on the sand just ahead of the same rock

The apparent blackening of the sand adjacent to the pants , immediately in front of the rock, I have dismissed shadowing due to a clear seperation of the blackening and the actual rock

And the most bizarre if you look at the bottom left where there are 2 rocks there is what appears to be an image of a face and thai type script

Any comments or am I being paranoid to the extreme

10623425_709488982462163_1090058383342056131_o-1.jpg

10623425_709488982462163_1090058383342056131_o-2.jpg

10623425_709488982462163_1090058383342056131_o-3.jpg

I see the face. Can't see if it is thai script though.

Wonder what that yellow thing is.

Adjacent to the face you can just start to make the script out , I zoomed in further and it starts to become clearer if thats possible, i think first letter ม,

going back to the picture showing Davids shorts and pants I noticed the following

The object wrapped in yellow on the rock in the background

The white object on the sand just ahead of the same rock

The apparent blackening of the sand adjacent to the pants , immediately in front of the rock, I have dismissed shadowing due to a clear seperation of the blackening and the actual rock

And the most bizarre if you look at the bottom left where there are 2 rocks there is what appears to be an image of a face and thai type script

Any comments or am I being paranoid to the extreme

ALE G

It's only a few other people besides me who have maintained a rational and fact based approach to the case as opposed to "good hard speculation into what could have happened".

Can you provide proof to substantiate your quote please

thailandchilli, it is not that the opinions of professionals have no weight; it's that, first, when asked for facts you provide opinions and second, if those opinions are not substantiated then they have no weight.

There is a difference between providing actual evidence that, for example, the DNA collected at the scene was contaminated/damaged/tampered with, etc... and quoting the opinion of someone regarding DNA collection procedures.

Did Dr. Rojanasunand actually audit the DNA work and doubted or dismissed the results of the analysis? or are you satisfied to simply cherry pick a quote without trying to find out if she subsequently validated her opinions by studying the actual procedures and results?

What you are doing is an appeal to authority to validate your claims, even if the authority you cite is not doing such thing or is casting an opinion without substantiating it.

If it would be the RTP investigators coming out to say that in their opinion the two Burmese men are guilty without providing any evidence or argument to support their opinion you'd be jumping up and down dismissing that as only an opinion too.

"just as some people obviously have no interest in a fair trial and trial process"

Who are these people?

Opinions made by professionals are generally well thought out measured and represent a view that is credible and as a result should be acted on investigated, of course they can also be ignored by some, I am not going to speculate how the UK government, or any other professional that I mentioned arrived at those opinions because that is what it would be, pure speculation.

"Opinions made by professionals are generally well thought out measured and represent a view that is credible and as a result should be acted on investigated"

You do realize that one of the people you are citing to support your argument based on their "well though out, measured and credible opinions" claimed that the GT200 dousing rod bomb detector was effective?

Just because someone with a degree, a title or a reputation says something is no reason to not question their opinions or expect them to substantiate them with evidence and facts.

Your attitude is a perfect example of appeal to authority: big cheese says something so it must be true.

There is evidence that her opinions have validity based on the fact that there was no chain of custody of the crime scene, and lets not forget the RTP case is also somewhat based on opinions

This is not going to be a popular post, especially as I am going to sound pompous.

Sometimes AleG posts information that is factual and correct. It does not help the case of those of us who doubt the RTP version of events to deny those facts. All it does is help those who want to brand us "conspiracy theorists who speculate in the teeth of evidence to the contrary". Meanwhile, the true issues get muddied. Here is a classic example:

Pol Lt-Gen Panya Mamen was transferred because he was after Mon and Namsot FALSE The timing was unfortunate, but his promotion had long been planned. Further, it was Pol Lt Gen Panya who made this statement just before taking up his new appointment:

The son of Woraphan Tuwichian, a Koh Tao village headman, was Thursday cleared because he was proven not to be on Koh Tao at the time of the murders.

This does not establish Nomsot's innocence, but it lays to rest the notion that Panya was removed to protect Mon and Nomsot. [Note that I do not know if Nomsot was involved. If the only proof he was in Bangkok is the CCTV, then I am not yet convinced. However, I have not seen any credible source confirming the claims that the furniture does not fit what should have been there. This is surprising, as proof of CCTV falsification would be big international news.]

The replacement of Panya with Pol Lt General Decha Butrnamphech may have been important for other reasons, though, as explained by Sondhi Limthongkul on TV October 15. His amazing long statement is mostly only available in Thai (

) but a short excerpt with English subtitles is at

(click near bottom right to enable subtitles). Main points: police did not dare arrest real culprits and Decha was determined to arrest scapegoats to please his boss.

We really need to try very hard to stick to verifiable facts, and be honest when we are putting forward theories based on incomplete evidence. We also need to acknowledge that the whole truth is not always quite the way we imagined it.

Good to see that you, unlike boomerangutang to name but one, actually went out and look at the facts.

The only facts I Know is the following

Crime scene mismanaged

No chain of custody of the crime scene

The profile of the suggested motive does not fit the crime

The statements presented are contradictory

There was no attention to detail by the rtp

Persons was cleared off involvement based on dna only

Who actually knows the facts,

But it is reported that the initial sample had been sent, what was the need to re-test

And why wad the headman/brother dna test using blood and not a saliva swab

Can we clarify if the defendants got dna tested twice, at time of arrest and when they was pictured in a line

The suspect caught a surat thani had is dna collected there and the other 2

suspects had not had their dna sent by oct1

The dna

Lets not forget the autopsy was carried out on the wednesday

DNA from suspects had already been collected and was awaiting results.

(Is it possible a lab mix up could have occured)

The defendants dna was collected at

The time of arrest

Was mon not confirmed as the man in the cctv but released based on the dna non match

The timeline of statements and cctv are problematic

Experts who analyzed the cctv put the guy between 5'3 and 5' 7 (160-170)

The info is out there in the public domain

My take on the whole affair is that the investigation became toxic for all concerned and they needed to get out quicker than an house on fire

There are many questions still left unanswered and maybe the trial will be enlightening but what i can say is the sceneria presented does not fit with the facts as we know them

Finally i would just like to comment on the parents powerful and convincing remark, when people make such comments to myself I
also remind them there was a certain magician on the tv in the 80s who also appeared powerful and convincing even though we already it was an illusion. Not everything is always what it seems.

Ah the dna raises it head again.thid is where people and the rtp have made some error of judgement in intepretting the results
Lets consider what the actual meaning of the dna "match" and " no match"

If a donor supplies a specimen that is a match for the sample , then this is intepreted that the donor is possibly the source of the sample, and the next question should be "how "
Now for the no match result, this obviously states that the donor could not have supplied the sample tested against.Sounds simple untill you then ask the next question can the donor be eliminated and in the case of a crime scene we have 3 possibilities

a ) the donor was not at the crime scene
the donor was at the crime scene ,dna left but either not the sample was unsuitable for testing or not collected by forensics forwhatever reason
C) the donor was at the crimescene but did not leave any dna

Throughout the investigation the common statement was the dna did not match so he is cleared, surely this is incorrect because if he was a suspect to begin with then other evidence would be required to eliminate or clear

Yes unfortunately that was the message sent out by the Thai Pm at the start of the investigation who stated, we are doing this as scientifically as possible, if peoples DNA does not match then they are innocent..............another gaff by him to add to the growing list of gaffs by officials in this case. I think the RTP took this as a message and then followed through[/quot

On a side issue are you aware that there is a report where Pornthip is stating that the headman could not have claimed his son innocent based on the dna test only